Sofya Asatryan
San Diego
Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Sofya Asatryan
The Federal Circuit Remands for a New Trial After Finding Untimely Expert Disclosure | JD Supra
Topic: The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s admission of D R Burton Healthcare’s expert testimony due to untimely disclosure and unreliability under the Federal Rules of Evidence 702. The Federal Circuit also reversed the district court’s decision denying a new trial on infringement. Background: The case involves Trudell Medical International Inc. (Trudell) as the plaintiff-appellant and D R Burton Healthcare, LLC (D R Burton) as the defendant/counter-claimant-cross-appellant.
The Federal Circuit Remands For A New Trial After Finding Untimely Expert Disclosure
SM Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton More Sheppard Mullin is a full service Global 100 firm with over 1,000 attorneys in 16 offices located in the United States, Europe and Asia. Since 1927, companies have turned to Sheppard Mullin to handle corporate and technology matters, high stakes litigation and complex financial transactions. In the US, the firm’s clients include more than half of the Fortune 100.
The Federal Circuit Remands for a New Trial After Finding Untimely Expert Disclosure
Topic: The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s admission of D R Burton Healthcare’s expert testimony due to untimely disclosure and unreliability under the Federal Rules of Evidence 702. The Federal Circuit also reversed the district court’s decision denying a new trial on infringement. Background: The case involves Trudell Medical International Inc. (Trudell) as the plaintiff-appellant and D R Burton Healthcare, LLC (D R Burton) as the defendant/counter-claimant-cross-appellant.
Federal Circuit Vacates Optis v. Apple LTE SEP Verdicts
Skip to main content September 29, 2025 Volume XV, Number 272 Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found. Trending News Unanimity on Trial: Federal Circuit Tosses $300 Million for Optis in Apple–Optis LTE Patent Wars Print Mail Download />i Facebook Linkedin Reddit X The Federal Circuit’s analyzed proper jury verdict form procedures and evidentiary rules in the context of LTE standard-essential patent litigation between Optis and Apple.
Unanimity On Trial: Federal Circuit Tosses $300 Million For Optis In Apple-Optis LTE Patent Wars
Listen to this post The Federal Circuit's analyzed proper jury verdict form procedures and evidentiary rules in the context of LTE standard-essential patent litigation between Optis and Apple. The Court addressed the intersection of jury unanimity rights, the validity of SEP claims under the abstract idea doctrine and means-plus-function rules, and the admissibility of FRAND-related settlement evidence under Rule 403.
Unanimity on Trial: Federal Circuit Tosses $300 Million for Optis in Apple–Optis LTE Patent Wars | JD Supra
The Federal Circuit’s analyzed proper jury verdict form procedures and evidentiary rules in the context of LTE standard-essential patent litigation between Optis and Apple. The Court addressed the intersection of jury unanimity rights, the validity of SEP claims under the abstract idea doctrine and means-plus-function rules, and the admissibility of FRAND-related settlement evidence under Rule 403. Background Optis Cellular Technology, LLC and related entities (“Optis”) sued Apple Inc.
The Federal Circuit Affirms Deterrence Sanctions | JD Supra
The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s award of sanctions for bad faith against a plaintiff’s conduct based on the meritless nature of several lawsuits filed in incorrect venues. Background The case[1] involves PS Products Inc. and Billy Pennington (collectively “PSP”) as plaintiffs-appellants against Panther Trading Co. Inc. (“Panther”) as the defendant-appellee.
The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s award of sanctions for bad faith against a plaintiff’s conduct based on the meritless nature of several lawsuits filed in incorrect venues. Background The case[1] involves PS Products Inc. and Billy Pennington (collectively “PSP”) as plaintiffs-appellants against Panther Trading Co. Inc. (“Panther”) as the defendant-appellee.
Federal Circuit Upholds $25,000 Sanctions for Bad Faith Patent Li
The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s award of sanctions for bad faith against a plaintiff’s conduct based on the meritless nature of several lawsuits filed in incorrect venues. Background The case[1] involves PS Products Inc. and Billy Pennington (collectively “PSP”) as plaintiffs-appellants against Panther Trading Co. Inc. (“Panther”) as the defendant-appellee.
Different Evidentiary Burdens In IPR Proceedings And District Court Means No Collateral Estoppel Effect On Related Patent Claims
After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision's position on each of the appealed issues.1 In 2011, ParkerVision sued Qualcomm alleging that it infringed its patented technology for down-converting electromagnetic signals using "energy sampling." A jury rejected Qualcomm's invalidity claims and found that Qualcomm "directly and indirectly" infringed multiple claims across four patents.
Different Evidentiary Burdens in IPR Proceedings and District Court Means No Collateral Estoppel Effect on Related Patent Claims | JD Supra
After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision’s position on each of the appealed issues.[1] Background In 2011, ParkerVision sued Qualcomm alleging that it infringed its patented technology for down-converting electromagnetic signals using “energy sampling.” A jury rejected Qualcomm’s invalidity claims and found that Qualcomm “directly and indirectly” infringed multiple claims across...
Different Evidentiary Burdens in IPR Proceedings and District Court Means No Collateral Estoppel Effect on Related Patent Claims
After ten years of litigation, the Federal Circuit found that the district court conducted an improper collateral estoppel analysis and upheld ParkerVision’s position on each of the appealed issues.[1] Background In 2011, ParkerVision sued Qualcomm alleging that it infringed its patented technology for down-converting electromagnetic signals using “energy sampling.” A jury rejected Qualcomm’s invalidity claims and found that Qualcomm “directly and indirectly” infringed multiple claims across...
The Federal Circuit Clarifies the Meaning of “Publicly Disclosed” | JD Supra
This decision[1] emphasizes the significance of broader public dissemination to meet the statutory requirement of “publicly disclosed” for purposes of exceptions to prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B). Background Sanho Corp.
The Federal Circuit Clarifies the Meaning of “Publicly Disclosed”
This decision[1] emphasizes the significance of broader public dissemination to meet the statutory requirement of “publicly disclosed” for purposes of exceptions to prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B). Sanho Corp. appealed a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) which found all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,572,429 (‘429 patent) unpatentable due to obviousness, relying on prior art that included U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0165053 (Kuo).
The Federal Circuit Clarifies the Meaning of “Publicly Disclosed”
This decision[1] emphasizes the significance of broader public dissemination to meet the statutory requirement of “publicly disclosed” for purposes of exceptions to prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B). Background Sanho Corp.
The Federal Circuit Interprets the Application of 35 USC § 285 and Attorney’s Fees | JD Supra
In Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C. No. 22-1621 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024), the Federal Circuit clarifies the standard for “exceptional” cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The case concerns attorneys’ fees and the application of § 285 attorneys’ fees to inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, and addresses attorney liability for § 285 fee awards. Background Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon”) filed lawsuits against Dish Network L.L.C. (DISH), Sirius XM Radio Inc.
The Federal Circuit Interprets The Application Of 35 USC § 285 And Attorney's Fees
Listen to this post In Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C. No. 22-1621 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024), the Federal Circuit clarifies the standard for "exceptional" cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The case concerns attorneys' fees and the application of § 285 attorneys' fees to inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings, and addresses attorney liability for § 285 fee awards. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC ("Dragon") filed lawsuits against Dish Network L.L.C. (DISH), Sirius XM Radio Inc.
The Federal Circuit Interprets the Application of 35 USC § 285 and Attorney’s Fees
In Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C. No. 22-1621 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024), the Federal Circuit clarifies the standard for “exceptional” cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The case concerns attorneys’ fees and the application of § 285 attorneys’ fees to inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, and addresses attorney liability for § 285 fee awards. Background Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon”) filed lawsuits against Dish Network L.L.C. (DISH), Sirius XM Radio Inc.
The Federal Circuit Interprets the Application of 35 USC § 285 and Attorney’s Fees
In Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C. No. 22-1621 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024), the Federal Circuit clarifies the standard for “exceptional” cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The case concerns attorneys’ fees and the application of § 285 attorneys’ fees to inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, and addresses attorney liability for § 285 fee awards. Background Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon”) filed lawsuits against Dish Network L.L.C. (DISH), Sirius XM Radio Inc.
Federal Circuit Applies WesternGeco Framework To Expert's Effort To Seek Royalties Flowing From Customers Overseas
In 2010, Trading Technologies International, Inc. ("TT") filed suit against IBG LLC and its subsidiary Interactive Brokers LLC for patent infringement. The four patents in question, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304; 6,772,132; 7,676,411; and 7,813,996 — were related and directed to graphical user interfaces used by commodity traders. TT alleged that IBG's software, TWS BookTrader, which is used by traders to buy and sell on exchanges, infringed its patents.
Federal Circuit Applies WesternGeco Framework to Expert’s Effort to Seek Royalties Flowing from Customers Overseas | JD Supra
In 2010, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) filed suit against IBG LLC and its subsidiary Interactive Brokers LLC for patent infringement. The four patents in question, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304; 6,772,132; 7,676,411; and 7,813,996 — were related and directed to graphical user interfaces used by commodity traders. TT alleged that IBG’s software, TWS BookTrader, which is used by traders to buy and sell on exchanges, infringed its patents.
Federal Circuit Applies WesternGeco Framework to Expert’s Effort to Seek Royalties Flowing from Customers Overseas
In 2010, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) filed suit against IBG LLC and its subsidiary Interactive Brokers LLC for patent infringement. The four patents in question, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304; 6,772,132; 7,676,411; and 7,813,996 — were related and directed to graphical user interfaces used by commodity traders. TT alleged that IBG’s software, TWS BookTrader, which is used by traders to buy and sell on exchanges, infringed its patents.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschlan GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis' '614 patent unpatentable as obvious. Mylan petitioned for inter partes review of Sanofi-Aventis' '614 patent, alleging that the challenged claims were obvious based on a combination of three prior art references: Venezia, Burren, and de Gennes. The parties agreed that the '614 patent and the de Gennes reference belonged to distinct fields of endeavor.
"Comparison Prior Art" Must Be Tied To The Same Article Of Manufacture As That Claimed
In Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. 2021-2299, 2021-2338 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patent infringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. It found that the lower court erred by failing to instruct the jury that "comparison prior art" must be tied to the same article of manufacture as that claimed.
Divided 9th Circuit Says District Court Has Power To Adjudicate TM Applications
In BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Cent. Coast Agric., Inc., 97 F.4th 668 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal district courts have power to adjudicate trademark applications pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119, provided that the litigation involves infringement of a registered trademark. Plaintiff BBK Tobacco & Foods LLC ("BBK") distributes and sells smoking-related products under the RAW trademark. Defendant Central Coast Agriculture, Inc.
Divided 9th Circuit Says District Court Has Power to Adjudicate TM Applications
In BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Cent. Coast Agric., Inc., 97 F.4th 668 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal district courts have power to adjudicate trademark applications pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119, provided that the litigation involves infringement of a registered trademark. Plaintiff BBK Tobacco & Foods LLC (“BBK”) distributes and sells smoking-related products under the RAW trademark. Defendant Central Coast Agriculture, Inc.
Divided 9th Circuit Says District Court Has Power to Adjudicate TM Applications | JD Supra
In BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Cent. Coast Agric., Inc., 97 F.4th 668 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal district courts have power to adjudicate trademark applications pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119, provided that the litigation involves infringement of a registered trademark. Plaintiff BBK Tobacco & Foods LLC (“BBK”) distributes and sells smoking-related products under the RAW trademark. Defendant Central Coast Agriculture, Inc.
Whistleblowers Needed: Government Loses $233 to $521 Billion Annually to Fraud According to New GAO Report
APRIL 19, 2024. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a first of its kind report on annual financial losses to the government due to fraud and the numbers are astounding. The GAO estimated that the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion every year, based on data from fiscal year 2018 to 2022.
Divided 9th Circuit Says District Court Has Power to Adjudicate TM Applications
In BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Cent. Coast Agric., Inc., 97 F.4th 668 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal district courts have power to adjudicate trademark applications pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119, provided that the litigation involves infringement of a registered trademark. Plaintiff BBK Tobacco & Foods LLC (“BBK”) distributes and sells smoking-related products under the RAW trademark. Defendant Central Coast Agriculture, Inc.
2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries- Intellectual Property: Year End Report
Find out more about Lexology or get in touch by visiting our About page. Register To view this article you need a PDF viewer such as Adobe Reader. If you can't read this PDF, you can view its text here. Go back to the PDF .
Federal Circuit Rebukes Attempt to Incorporate Arguments by Reference to a Related IPR Petition | JD Supra
In Medronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Limited, 2022-1721, 2022-1722 (Fed. Cir. Nov.
Federal Circuit Rebukes Attempt to Incorporate Arguments by Reference to a Related IPR Petition
In Medronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Limited, 2022-1721, 2022-1722 (Fed. Cir. Nov.
Federal Circuit Rebukes Attempt to Incorporate Arguments by Reference to a Related IPR Petition
In Medronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Life Sciences Limited, 2022-1721, 2022-1722 (Fed. Cir. Nov.
“Comparison Prior Art” Must Be Tied to the Same Article of Manufacture as That Claimed | JD Supra
In Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. 2021-2299, 2021-2338 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patent infringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. It found that the lower court erred by failing to instruct the jury that “comparison prior art” must be tied to the same article of manufacture as that claimed.
“Comparison Prior Art” Must Be Tied to the Same Article of Manufacture as That Claimed
In Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. 2021-2299, 2021-2338 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patent infringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. It found that the lower court erred by failing to instruct the jury that “comparison prior art” must be tied to the same article of manufacture as that claimed.
“Comparison Prior Art” Must Be Tied to the Same Article of Manufacture as That Claimed
In Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. 2021-2299, 2021-2338 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2023), the Federal Circuit vacated a jury verdict of non-infringement in a design-patent infringement action filed by Columbia Sportswear against Seirus Innovative Accessories. It found that the lower court erred by failing to instruct the jury that “comparison prior art” must be tied to the same article of manufacture as that claimed.
Axonics v. Medtronic | JD Supra
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decisions because the PTAB erred in its obviousness analysis and found that Axonics failed to show a motivation to combine as to Medtronic’s ‘314 and ‘756 patents. Background Medtronic sued Axonics for patent infringement. Medtronic’s invention concerns a medical device that stimulates sacral nerves. Axonics filed two inter partes review (IPR) petitions to challenge various claims of the U.S. Patent Nos.
PTAB Errors Axonics vs. Medtronic Patents
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decisions because the PTAB erred in its obviousness analysis and found that Axonics failed to show a motivation to combine as to Medtronic’s ‘314 and ‘756 patents. Background Medtronic sued Axonics for patent infringement. Medtronic’s invention concerns a medical device that stimulates sacral nerves. Axonics filed two inter partes review (IPR) petitions to challenge various claims of the U.S. Patent Nos.
Axonics v. Medtronic - Patent - United States
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") decisions because the PTAB erred in its obviousness analysis and found that Axonics failed to show a motivation to combine as to Medtronic's '314 and '756 patents. Medtronic sued Axonics for patent infringement. Medtronic's invention concerns a medical device that stimulates sacral nerves. Axonics filed two inter partes review (IPR) petitions to challenge various claims of the U.S. Patent Nos.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschlan GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. | JD Supra
The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious. Background Mylan petitioned for inter partes review of Sanofi-Aventis’ ‘614 patent, alleging that the challenged claims were obvious based on a combination of three prior art references: Venezia, Burren, and de Gennes. The parties agreed that the ’614 patent and the de Gennes reference belonged to distinct fields of endeavor.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschlan GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious. Background Mylan petitioned for inter partes review of Sanofi-Aventis’ ‘614 patent, alleging that the challenged claims were obvious based on a combination of three prior art references: Venezia, Burren, and de Gennes. The parties agreed that the ’614 patent and the de Gennes reference belonged to distinct fields of endeavor.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschlan GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious. Background Mylan petitioned for inter partes review of Sanofi-Aventis’ ‘614 patent, alleging that the challenged claims were obvious based on a combination of three prior art references: Venezia, Burren, and de Gennes. The parties agreed that the ’614 patent and the de Gennes reference belonged to distinct fields of endeavor.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschlan GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding the challenged claims of Sanofi-Aventis’ ’614 patent unpatentable as obvious. Background Mylan petitioned for inter partes review of Sanofi-Aventis’ ‘614 patent, alleging that the challenged claims were obvious based on a combination of three prior art references: Venezia, Burren, and de Gennes. The parties agreed that the ’614 patent and the de Gennes reference belonged to distinct fields of endeavor.
2023 Federal Circuit Case Summaries | JD Supra
We are excited to share Sheppard Mullin’s inaugural quarterly report on key Federal Circuit decisions. The Spring 2023 Quarterly Report provides summaries of most key patent law-related decisions from January 1, 2023 to March 31, 2023. Please see full Publication below for more information. Download PDF
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Sofya
Contact Sofya, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack